9-4x Performance

[toxicavenger]

That's the first time I hear a 2.5 engine called tiny! What does that make of my 2.3 liter Aero engine?

I test drove a 9-4x with the 3.0 at Dana Motors in Billings, Montana and found the power adequate. No hot rod, but it moved well.

He might be replying to the fact that the 2.5 isn't a very strong feeling motor unless he has the turbo model. The 2.3 with out a turbo wouldn't suck imo.


Hey Wulfers your right about the 9-5 being easier for the dogs to get in. My German Wired Hair Pointer likes to be assisted with getting in and I couldn't imagine trying to lug him into a 9-4x.

[david]

The comment on the 9-5 being cramped was from the sedan, not the wagon. The sedan just felt small to me when sitting in the drivers seat, being that it's Saab's top model, I felt it should have been nicer. Too bad Saab didn't get the 2010 model out in in 2006... too little too late I guess.

[rpiereck]

He might be replying to the fact that the 2.5 isn't a very strong feeling motor unless he has the turbo model. The 2.3 with out a turbo wouldn't suck imo.

That would only come from someone who only drove cars with huge engines all their lives. I owned a Forester with a 2.5 non turbo engine and it has plenty of power, it's a pretty torquey engine and very smooth too. It's not a hot rod (the turbo is closer to that), but it does not disappoint. I had my Forester loaded with 600 lbs of my own junk on the drive from Utah to Alaska in 2008 and the engine never complained, even on mountain passes. Subaru turbo engines also require 93 octane fuel all the time (not even 91!), and in Alaska they all had to be detuned to run on 90 octane. The n/a engines will run on 87 all day long. I raced a WRX in Alaska with my Forester once, and thanks to his engine knocking with 90 octane, even detuned, I won the race with a Forester. He was ashamed to find out I had a n/a 2.5 engine.

[packardv8]

If you're looking for excuses not to buy one, i.e. lack of power, spotty parts availability, then you're right.

If you're looking for reasons to buy one, i.e uniqueness, handling, affordable luxury, then you're also right.

And really, how often do you hold full throttle through several gears these days? Even with the underpowered 3.0 and a podunk town like Spokane, I'm up the tailpipe of the car in front of me ten times more often than I'm left in the dust.

I'm an aggressive but smooth driver and have never really needed more power than the 3.0 XWD had to give. We just took a 1500 mile trip loaded to the max and passed on two lane roads at 70MPH when we needed to. It doesn't have the power I want, but it really has all one needs.

jack vines

[toxicavenger]

Well I wasn't saying the 2.5 isn't a torquey motor just it doesn't feel like it will haul ass when the pedal is pushed down. I have owned a 9-2x, 2 Subaru GT's (n/a) and 1 Outback (n/a) and they all weren't impressive compared to the 2.3t in power.

If you beat a WRX with a n/a Forester then I would have to say that dude couldn't drive or the car had some serious issues.

Oh and the biggest engine in any of my cars in the last 12 years was a 2.7tt.

Good luck to OP on what ever you decide to get.

That would only come from someone who only drove cars with huge engines all their lives. I owned a Forester with a 2.5 non turbo engine and it has plenty of power, it's a pretty torquey engine and very smooth too. It's not a hot rod (the turbo is closer to that), but it does not disappoint. I had my Forester loaded with 600 lbs of my own junk on the drive from Utah to Alaska in 2008 and the engine never complained, even on mountain passes. Subaru turbo engines also require 93 octane fuel all the time (not even 91!), and in Alaska they all had to be detuned to run on 90 octane. The n/a engines will run on 87 all day long. I raced a WRX in Alaska with my Forester once, and thanks to his engine knocking with 90 octane, even detuned, I won the race with a Forester. He was ashamed to find out I had a n/a 2.5 engine.

[brownieone]

I used to have a Trailblazer and drove the 9-7X a few times. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised when you drive the 9-4X.

The only issue with the engine/transmission I sometimes had was overtaking other vehicles at 50+ mph. The transmission liked to shift up too much and there isn't much power/torque above 5000 rpm, unlike the several 9-5 I owned. I learned flooring the gas pedal was not the quickest way to overtake.

But still, the engine sounds quite nice and still faster than the average car on the road.

Frank - How about if you put it in "Sport Mode"? I find it more responsive when I do that.

[brownieone]

I haven't seen any 9-4's in Colorado yet, but I would like to check one out.

So you have 2 dogs? Why is the 9-5 too small for them? I think the cargo space in the 9-5 is at least the same size as the 9-4 or bigger. Heck I carry both my dogs in my 9-5 and 1 is 85lbs and the other is 61lbs.

Good luck in what ever you decide.

I bought a NG 9-5 for my two dogs to ride in ... traded in a GMC Acadia ... as I so wanted to support Saab. Of course they (one 85 pounds, one 19 pounds) fit, but they did not fit comfortably with my two kids.

So ... I then bought a 9-4X and the problem was solved ... kids in back seat, dogs in cargo area.